Importance of A-10 Thunderbolt (warthog)

[gf0012-aust]

I am not so sure what you mean by this. Nonetheless, sure I doubt I know as much about this as you do. However I have always had an interest in the armed forces and consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject. I know much more about all military subjects than my friends and I like to talk to them about and inform them if they are interested. I do this as opposed to saying your wrong, everyone in the world thinks this, I will not explain why (this is what i felt you did).

What I'm saying is that an officer who claims combat experience from the 1970's was unaware of the changes in development in CAS - and argued with airforce officers who were current, TAC planners - and in some cases were singularly responsible for elements of the air campaign in GW1 and GW2. Expertise is a dangerous adjective as it needs to be viewed in the prism of when it was relevant. CAS 38 years ago is not even remotely similar to CAS in 2008 (or CAS changes starting from 2001)

One last point, the person you originally quoted seems to have first hand military experience which should not be overlooked when reaching your conclusion (something I do not have and I assume neither do you). Basically what I am saying is that I would like to know your reasoning when stating that person was wrong, I am not just going to take your word for it because you said so.

This is way outside the scope of this thread - but I used to assume that the above cited individual was a military professional - he often claims it so. Yet the other day he was unable to demonstrate to me that he had any awareness of how material was cleared for release at various security levels. It was a specific question that he should have been able to demonstrate insider knowledge. he didn't.

so, people can claim as much as they like - but sooner or later the extent of their knowledge comes out. there's nothing wrong with an academic interest - but practical experience is always far more useful as its achieved by actual experience, lessons learnt and training. Text books don't achieve that in a non military environment.

Bottom line is that experience has to be judged on context and relevance. Talking is different from doing.

 

[Human Bass]

Go to liveleak and search for a video where the A-10 use its gun. It sounds scary, very scary.

 

[B.Smitty]

The best option for replacing both A-10s, AC-130s and many AH-64 and strike fighter missions is the Cal Poly Firefox. It can loiter overhead for four hours from a base 500 NM away and fly tactical approaches or over target circles. It carries over 4,000 rounds of 40mm with three trainable guns (for simultaneous engagement of different targets and redundancy) and 100 rounds of 105mm high velocity. The low cost of these munitions provides precise capability against structures without having to use high cost guided missiles or bombs. With four crew, AESA and two MTS-Bs it is a high level ISR platform in its own right. With the high level of armour, structural strength and EWSP it has a very low pK from AAA and MANPADS (under 0.1). In COIN it is by far the best CAS platform and would be lethal in a range of medium and high intensity situations as well.

I'm sympathetic to the notion that any future CAS-specific platform should be more like an AC-130 than an A-10, and the Firefox is certainly an interesting project but there are a few things right off the bat that seem problematic.

1. Why use a forward-firing 105mm tank gun? The AC-130 currently uses a 105mm howitzer and it's considered too much gun for the mission. Studies have been performed to replace it with a 120mm mortar. The tank gun may reduce the ToF at 18k ft from 9.2 to 3.9 secs, but since it can't keep the gun on target using a pylon turn like the AC-130, it will have to make repeated passes. IMHO, this severely limits the utility of this configuration. It would be better to dispense with the weight and complexity of the mount and just carry 4000+lbs of small PGMs.

2. I like the CTA turrets, but the US does not field the 40mm CTA munition or weapon. So even though it might be less effective, basing it on a fielded 25-30mm mount might make more sense.

3. A big one. Can we really afford to design and build a single purpose airframe for this? I don't think so. Maybe starting with the existing AC-130U design makes more sense. Or use a smaller USAF aircraft like the C-27J.

4. What about DE weapons such as a laser and/or ADS microwave system. How will they fit in? ADS, in particular, would allow give the gunship a less-than-lethal option.

5. Is the nose-mounted APG-79 the right way to go? Wouldn't a side-looking radar like the MP-RTIP for Global Hawk provide more range, resolution and coverage?

6. No mention was made about carrying existing PGMs. AC-130Us are being modified to carry JDAMS and LGBs, so a small bomb bay or wing hardpoints might be worthwhile.

6. Will we ever be able to afford enough of them to ensure widespread availability to troops on the ground? Their single-mission focus is a hindrance here.

Still, it does provide an interesting topic for discussion.

 

[the road runner]

Did some research and came up with this .....

(QUOTE)"All sources point to the F-35 operating between 15,000 and 20,000 feet when conducting close air support. That altitude is high enough to avoid manpads............"(QUOTE)

But doing CAS at that height will take a minute or so for JSF bomb to reach its target,were as the A10 flying or strafing a target, the weapon is on target in a matter of seconds.....am i right in saying that? If so i would rather a weapons platform that is on target in a matter of seconds.But thats just me

(QUOTE)"It should be kept in service until the superior F-35 is available to replace it..."(QUOTE)

My point here is should OR could the A10 be kept in service longer to be used in a third world country or war on terror,where there are not as much advanced weapons platforms? I just think its a waste to use a JSF on a ground target that has no AD weapons or fighter aircraft.an example using a JSF in the Congo or an A10.An A10 will do just fine would it not..

(QUOTE)"I'd say the A-10 having no element of surprise so that the enemy can simply run away is its worst adversary on the battlefield........." (QUOTE)

But if the enemy is running away,have they not dis-engaged the US ground troops? If so the A10 has been sucessful in Causing the enemy to flee

(QUOTE)"A-10's are also slow to arrive. Flying at low altitude they can see very little area at any moment so more aircraft are required...."(QUOTE)

They saw 987 tanks,926 artillery pieces, 1,106 trucks, 51 SCUD missile launchers and a whole lot of support vehicles and bunkers,with the loss of only 5 A-10s.I guess they are not that blind:


(QUOTE)"and some of your other points....
The F-35 uses stealth which allows it to fly at medium altitude. Medium altitude allows it to fly with greater efficiency and allows it to loiter over the battlefield for longer than the A-10..........."(QUOTE)

I would not know about what plane loiter over the battlefield the longest


(QUOTE)"The F-35B can land and operate on a roof of a building if required........." (QUOTE)

Thats if the roof is flat,has been structually designed to carry a 20 tonne plus point load.It cannot land on a tin roof or pitched roof and why would you want to land it on the roof?>>>>>>ala IRONMAN?

(QUOTE)"The F-35 can loiter for longer while flying at higher altitudes, while being able to pick off more targets at any moment due to its larger sensor footprint and speed................" (QUOTE)

BUT if you are bombing from a higher altitude...dose it not take longer for the bomb to reach its intended target?And isnt time what counts when doin CAS,beieng able to protect your soldiers,when they need and call for CAS.

(QUOTE)"As icing on the cake the F-35 wont have to have fighter escorts protecting it as the F-35 is also the second best air superiority fighter in the world. So you are replacing multiple aircraft with the F-35 that is also superior in each of the roles.........."(QUOTE)

Agreed


(QUOTE)"That goes against logic.

Which aircraft would you rather fly, an F-35 that can perform its mission without getting shot at, or the A-10 that gets hit with bullets every mission but has a good chance of surviving?

I know what aircraft any sane person would pick........................."(QUOTE)

Well i guess we have to dis agree on this one , as i think that having a weapons platform that is designed to take hits by ground fire,fly in the weeds and blow the F#$% out of anything that moves or shoots at it,AND gives the US and allied troops on the ground that warm fuzzy feeling in the stomach,that they are loved and also makes enemys run away when they hear it comming.........AWSOME in my eyes


(QUOTE)"5 aircraft lost and dozens of aircraft damaged beyond repair is NOT an amazing record.........."

That goes against logic.....(QUOTE)



Guys sorry i tried to multi quote but it did not work ,i will re edit it when i find out how to multi quote SORRY!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Guys sorry i tried to multi quote but it did not work ,i will re edit it when i find out how to multi quote SORRY!

quite a few of those quotes lack relevance now - ie they predate the Litening and Sniper pod upgrades.

 

[B.Smitty]

Well i guess we have to dis agree on this one , as i think that having a weapons platform that is designed to take hits by ground fire,fly in the weeds and blow the F#$% out of anything that moves or shoots at it,AND gives the US and allied troops on the ground that warm fuzzy feeling in the stomach,that they are loved and also makes enemys run away when they hear it comming.........AWSOME in my eyes

We should always design to avoid fire first.

An aircraft that takes significant hits may limp home to base, but chances are it will be out of action for a significant period of time. You can't always just put duct tape on the holes and send it back out.

Say you start with 20 aircraft flying 2 sorties per day. With every sortie, one gets shot up.

How long before you have no more aircraft to fight?

Not very, if the damage is beyond superficial.

Go back and watch the YouTube of the low-altitude F-16 flyby. Those troops seemed impressed to me. I'm sure the bad guys in that town were too.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Go back and watch the YouTube of the low-altitude F-16 flyby. Those troops seemed impressed to me. I'm sure the bad guys in that town were too.

there is the well known story of the Aust SASR who secured a town in NW Iraq by calling in a low fly by.... with the implied intent of what would follow...

 

[B.Smitty]

there is the well known story of the Aust SASR who secured a town in NW Iraq by calling in a low fly by.... with the implied intent of what would follow...

If anything, the F-35 will be even more intimidating than its predecessors.

"Study: F-35 twice as loud as F-15"
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/airforce_f35_basing_102608/

After mulling over that Firefox paper, I had a thought. Why not develop a 40mm turret insert for a heavy bomber's bomb bay? Make it containerized so you can add or remove it as needed.

Given something like this, every bomber in the inventory is a potential gunship.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I have a question how effective will the F-35s 25mm canon be if it has only 180 rounds? I know they only fire in burst anyway but how many burst will 180 rounds provide and how many ground targets can the F-35 kill in strafing runs?

 

[der_Master]

I really have no idea. However I do not really think it matters. As I doubt the F-35 would be doing many (if any) strafing runs. Anyway it should work ok, a few well placed bursts should be enough to take out any target. That being said it should have enough for the duration of the battle, I dont really see it as an issue. It will empty its cannon eventually but by that time it should have inflicted more than sufficient damage. That just gave me an idea though. Could a F-35 VTOL version however in the air similar to an apache to protect ground forces for a short amount of time to fire off quick accurate bursts from the 25mm canon. I really doubt it but even the remote possibly would be cool. I know this would be a bad idea for the pilot (very easy target) but I just want to know if it could, regardless of how tactically bad it would be.

 

[Human Bass]

The troops really like how the A-10 actually see them, different from a F-16 that many times see the target as some kind of dot in an electronic map.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

They thought the F-15 and F-16 would not have to do much strafing runs ether but they do so it does matter.

Also the F-35B can't hover and shoot at the same time, that would be cool though.

 

[RubiconNZ]

They thought the F-15 and F-16 would not have to do much strafing runs ether but they do so it does matter.

Also the F-35B can't hover and shoot at the same time, that would be cool though.

Certainly looks good in Die Hard 4, deceptive advertising in that movie fa sure.

 

[Human Bass]

A good read of how much the A-10 kicked ass

http://www.vectorsite.net/ava10_2.html#m1

The F-16 also simply could not tolerate the ground fire at low altitude anywhere near as well as the Hog. To some, this was not at all a surprise.One retired Pentagon engineer was cited in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL as saying that the notion of using the F-16 for CAS was "one of the most monumentally fraudulent ideas the Air Force has ever perpetrated."

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Certainly looks good in Die Hard 4, deceptive advertising in that movie fa sure.

Who knows maybe 20 years from now they will have some massive upgrade program for the F-35B were it can do that....I'm being overly optimistic though...

 

[moahunter]

The A10 is a terrific / proven aircraft, but I can't help thinking that over time, the close air support role will be replaced not so much by the F35, but rather, by UAV's. UAV's are already transforming the battlefield - its only going to get more extreme in the next decade or two, as they become more integrated with advanced combat systems and similar.

 

[der_Master]

Ya that's probably true. UAVs and UCAVs are quickly getting better and eventually will take over the ground support role completely. They are much safer, do a decent job, and cheaper?

Certainly looks good in Die Hard 4, deceptive advertising in that movie fa sure.

Lol ya for sure, that's what gave me the idea. I wonder why it cant though. The only thing I can think of is recoil on the gun would shake the plane and possibly cause it to crash at low altitude?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Ya that's probably true. UAVs and UCAVs are quickly getting better and eventually will take over the ground support role completely. They are much safer, do a decent job, and cheaper?



Lol ya for sure, that's what gave me the idea. I wonder why it cant though. The only thing I can think of is recoil on the gun would shake the plane and possibly cause it to crash at low altitude?

I don't know how much it cost to maintain a UAV vs a manned CAS plane but I know when it comes to those dangerous CAS and SEAD missions you don't have to risk a pilots.

As for the F-35B I don't think it can fire a gun/missile well the lift fan is open at the same time...that might cause some very problematic occurrences.

 

[rjmaz1]

A few points.

1. The A-10 performed its role at low altitude during the Gulf war because IR targetting pods were immature. CAS then had to be performed at low altitude which makes the A-10 clearly superior due to its ability to take damage when flying low.
2. With advances in IR/EO sensors the aircraft can move to medium altitude so taking damage from ground fire is not as important. So the superior armour of the A-10 is no longer than important. If anything the weight reduces performance.
3. Many retired army personnel or veterans from the Gulf War respect the A-10, however they may not know how far PGM and IR sensors have advanced. They still believe that close air support can only be performed accurately at low altitude. That has definitely changed, with modern datalinking an F_35 at 20,000feet will see exactly where the enemy is and know exactly where the friendly forces are by using its sensors and datalinks.
4. Flying at medium altitude does not take longer for the bombs to hit the target. Flying higher allows the aircraft to detect the target and get into a firing position earlier. So even if the bomb takes a few extra seconds in the air the target will still get destroyed earlier than a low altitude A-10A.
5. People say the A-10 can loiter for hours, well so can the F-35. The F-35 only weighs 20% more yet has 70% more internal fuel. Thats a huge advantage with the F-35. Even if the F-35 is slightly less efficient that is a huge amount of fuel to make up for it. Also remember that the A-10 carries all its weapons externally increasing drag and reducing loiter time. The F-35 carries it weapons internally.

 

[Feanor]

A few points.

1. The A-10 performed its role at low altitude during the Gulf war because IR targetting pods were immature. CAS then had to be performed at low altitude which makes the A-10 clearly superior due to its ability to take damage when flying low.
2. With advances in IR/EO sensors the aircraft can move to medium altitude so taking damage from ground fire is not as important. So the superior armour of the A-10 is no longer than important. If anything the weight reduces performance.

1. 
   
   Don't forget another factor. SAMs have also improved quite a bit since then. So the significance of flying higher to escape tac-SAMs is even greater.
   
   

   [*]Flying at medium altitude does not take longer for the bombs to hit the target. Flying higher allows the aircraft to detect the target and get into a firing position earlier. So even if the bomb takes a few extra seconds in the air the target will still get destroyed earlier than a low altitude A-10A.
   [*]People say the A-10 can loiter for hours, well so can the F-35. The F-35 only weighs 20% more yet has 70% more internal fuel. Thats a huge advantage with the F-35. Even if the F-35 is slightly less efficient that is a huge amount of fuel to make up for it. Also remember that the A-10 carries all its weapons externally increasing drag and reducing loiter time. The F-35 carries it weapons internally.

Bottom line, which can loiter for longer? If we don't know then it's down to guess work.